On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 01:39:50 -0000, you wrote:

>There are lots of places under US sovereignty that are not or were not
>in the US where the US courts operate or operated:

I think we have different view or definitions of Sovereignty which
make discussion of Sovereignty difficult. We had a similar
disagreement over the areas in Rome that the Vatican has that are not
part of the Vatican City State.

I take the view that Sovereignty is akin to ownership, while I take
it, you hold a view of Sovereignty is akin to control. I can
understand your view but I disagree with it. It may be a minor point
as control is paramount to gaining benefit from the land but a
difference does exist between control and ownership.

West Berlin and Ryukyus Islands were occupied territories. While the
US ruled, or controlled, these territories, the US never claimed
ownership.

Guam is a unincorporated territory of the US. To me, a federal
contractor working in the accounting and HR areas of the government,
the CONUS/NON-CONUS distinction is only to account for the higher
cost of living in some specific areas of the US. Alaska and Hawaii
while US states are also NON-CONUS area given the cost of living and
transportation to/from the rest of the US. Sovereignty (Either
definition) is not a question here,

> a. The US Sector of W. Berlin (the US had prisoners there, too.
>The US had a District Court that oeprated in occuplied Berlin, so

I am unfamiliar with a US District Court in Berlin. I worked with US
Courts and I am familiar with there locations (and former locations -
Panama, the Philippines, and former Trust Territories of the US) and
never heard of a Court in Berlin. Could it have been a Military Court?
They are different. Generally the US only has District Courts on its
states or territories, not in occupied lands or leased areas.

-Andrew
--
Andrew T. Patton (andrew@...)
Fairfax, VA, USA
Travelogues and Photos at http://www.AndrewPatton.com